the objectives of OSC Watch:
1) "out" OSC lawbreaking since 1989 in failing to protect, as required by 5 USC 1214, the 10,000 or more federal employees who sought its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP's) - not limited to whistleblower reprisal type PPP, but including the 11 (of 12) types of PPP for which OSC has jurisdiction - particularly the 3000 or so who subsequently filed whistleblower appeals at MSPB; along with MSPB's enabling lawbreaking failure since 1989, per 5 USC 1204, to conduct oversight of OSC's compliance with 5 USC 1214;
2) stop OSC lawbreaking and MSPB enabling lawbreaking, and
3) obtain some measure of justice for the 10,000 or more direct victims of OSC's lawbreaking since 1989.

November 28, 2007

There is a story in today's Wall Street Journal that describes how Office of Special Counsel (OSC) head Scott Bloch used OSC money to pay "Geeks for hire" to erase his computer hard drive and those of his two deputies using the most sophisicated computer hard drive erasure technology commerically available, while he was being investigated by the Office of Personnel Management IG.

The blogosphere has picked up on this story in a big way, see here, here, and here.

November 25, 2007

PETITION TO CONGRESS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL (OSC) AND MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD (MSPB) COMPLIANCE WITH LAW TO PROTECT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES (PPP’S)

The undersigned organizations and individuals respectfully request Congress discharge its oversight authority, per 5 USC 1217, of OSC’s compliance with aspects of its statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP’s, particularly whistleblower reprisal, and to conduct oversight, per 5 USC 1205, the compliance of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) with its statutory duty to conduct oversight of OSC’s performance in protecting federal employees from PPP’s.

This petition is largely about OSC’s compliance with a single subsection of law, 5 USC 1214(e), by which OSC is to report to the involved agency head, for any investigation it conducts per 1214 or 1216, its determination of "reasonable cause to believe" there has been a violation of any law, rule, or regulation. We understand OSC claims that 1214(e) does not apply to the laws by which it conducts investigations per 1214 and 1216 and that OSC has complete discretion in reporting its determinations of violation of any law, rule, or regulation not under its enforcement jurisdiction. The incontestable fact is that OSC has not, since this law was created in 1989, made a single 1214(e) report, not in about 8000 field investigations conducted, based on a review of its Annual Reports to Congress and its public records maintained at its Washington, DC office.

Instead, it appears to be OSC’s position that the only time it must report its determination of a violation of a law under its enforcement authority is when it makes the discretionary decision to prosecute it at MSPB per 1215. We do not believe the law gives OSC this discretion to limit its reporting its determinations of violations of law to the (few) cases it decides to prosecute at MSPB per 1215. We petition Congress to conduct oversight over this OSC interpretation of 1214(e), some of its other statutory obligations, and the compliance of MSPB with its responsibilities to conduct oversight of OSC as described in the following:

1. OSC fails to comply with its fundamental statutory duty to the approximately 1800 federal employees who annually seek its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP’s), particularly whistleblower reprisal - it fails to make and appropriately report, per 5 USC 1214(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (e), 1218, and/or 1219(a)(3), its required PPP determination "whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken." No one, including the complainants, Congress, the public, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the heads of involved agencies, and the Office of Personnel Management know the facts about OSC’s implementation of its fundamental statutory duty as an investigatory agency - to make and appropriately report its PPP determinations. Among other things, OSC’s failure to comply with its statutory duties make it impossible for heads of agencies to comply with their duty, per 2302( c), to "prevent PPP’s" in their agencies.

2. As demonstrated in a recent federal court decision (Carson v. OSC, docket no. 06-1833, Federal District Court for the District of Columbia), OSC fails to provide the federal employees who seek its protection the statutory required information, per 5 USC 1214(a)(2)(A), and the "termination statement" found in the notes of 1214, particularly prejudicing the ability of complainants alleging whistleblower reprisal to obtain subsequent relief from the MSPB via whistleblower appeals.

3. OSC unlawfully suspends its investigation of whistleblower reprisal PPP complaints if the complaint files a whistleblower appeal with MSPB per 5 USC 1214(a)(3)(B) and 1221, contrary to the interests of the complainant and contrary to 1214(a)(4).

4. OSC, when it fails to make its required PPP determination within the 240 day limit of 1214(b)(2)(A), unlawfully threatens to close its PPP investigation unless the complainant agrees to an open-ended extension of time, it will not agreed to complete its investigation and make its PPP determination within a specified time.

5. OSC’s non-compliance with its aspects of its duties to protect federal employees from PPP’s is enabled by the failure of MSPB to conduct oversight of OSC’s performance of this function, its primary one. By 1204(a)(3) and (e)(3) MSPB is authorized and required to conduct oversight of OSC and other agencies necessary to determine and report to Congress and the President "whether the public interest in a civil service free of PPP’s is being adequately protected." Given that OSC is the agency specifically charged to protect federal employees from PPP’s, MSPB cannot comply with its duties and make its required determination and report unless it regularly conducts oversight of OSC’s performance in this area, something it has not done since this requirement was created in 1989.

6. OSC, for reasons described above, fails to report its determinations of apparent Hatch Act violations per 5 USC 1214(e), 1218, and 1219(a)(3). According to an recent OSC FOIA response, it has made 1,181 such determinations, based on investigations conducted per 1216, since 1989.

7. OSC fails to investigate the findings of Federal Judges of possible agency FOIA malfeasance, made per 5 USC 552(a)(4)(F) and reported to OSC per 5 USC 1216(a)(3), per 552 and 1216. It fails to report the findings and determinations of these investigations per 552, 1214(e), 1218, and/or 1219(a)(3). According to the limited information provided in its Annual Reports to Congress, OSC has conducted at least 40 such field investigations since 1989

8. Finally, Special Counsel Bloch, in writing, has repeatedly claimed to Congress that OSC’s Annual Report to Congress comply with 1218, but when those claims are challenged in Court (Carson v. OSC, docket no. 07-443, Federal District Court for the District of Columbia), instead of defending the completeness and accuracy of its Annual Reports to Congress, OSC claims its compliance with 1218 is now a matter of its discretion, so that it can apparently claim whatever it wants in this report.

November 19, 2007

About 50% of OSC 110 employees are licensed attorneys. Most of them were specifically hired to implement 5 U.S.C. 1214, the section of law that describes OSC duties to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices.

However, as they appear to interpret legal ethics, if OSC does not want them to implement 5 U.S.C. 1214, then they have a positive legal duty to break the law on OSC's behalf, because OSC is their "client" whose interests they are required to advance, whether legal or not. They appear to claim that legal ethics prohibits them from "blowing whistles" on OSC lawbreaking (unless they are directly impacted by it) and requires them to do whatever they (legally?) can to conceal OSC's lawbreaking from disclosure.

When government attorneys, specifically hired by OSC to implement specific laws to protect concerned federal employees, who have responsibilities for the safeguards and security of America's nuclear stockpile or other things of the utmost importance for public and safety, from unlawful retribution, do not have to implement those laws, can apparently claim that their lawbreaking is their positive duty, given the wishes of their employer, OSC, and their licensing authority takes no issue with it, we are all at increased and unnecessary risk of a nuclear 9/11 or other catastrophic event in America.

OSC is the only federal agency authorized to investigate and prosecute Hatch Act violations. The Hatch Act places significant limitations on use of government resources for advancing partisan political ends and also places some limits on federal employee's involvement with partisan political activities off-the-job.

OSC's failure to implement the laws it is responsible to implement - whether to uphold the merit principles of the civil service by protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, or enforce Hatch Act, or deter agency non-compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - is near identical in practice.

As an investigatory agency, OSC has mandatory obligations to investigate allegations of violations of the law for which it has jurisdiction, determine "whether there are reasonable grounds to believe" the violations occurred, and appropriately report its determination, positive or negative, per 5 U.S.C. 1214(e).

As a prosecutorial agency, OSC has complete discretion about seeking corrective and/or disciplinary action to correct the violations of the laws under its jurisdiction. But it does not have the discretion to only report the (relatively few) violations it decides to prosecute. But that is what OSC has done, since 1989 - only report its determinations of violations of law under its jurisdiction when it has made the discretionary decision to prosecute them, if it reports them at all.

OSC's November 9, 2007 response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about its record of documenting its determinations of Hatch Act violations demonstrates this - OSC's response states it has made 1,181 determinations of Hatch Act violations since 1989, without reporting a single one per 5 U.S.C. 1214(e). OSC's cover letter states, without elaboration, that 5 U.S.C. 1214(e) reporting requirements do not apply to its Hatch Act determinations. Since OSC has not made a single 1214(e) report since being created in 1989, apparently OSC thinks they do not apply to anything OSC investigates.

Because OSC fails to report its determinations of violations of the laws it is charged to implement in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1214(e), the involved agency head does not have to certify a response to OSC, and a public record of OSC's 1214(e) report and the agency head-certified response is not created as described in 5 U.S.C. 1219. Neither the Congress, press, nor public can obtain much information about OSC's determinations of violations of the laws for which it has jurisdiction, nor does the involved agency' have to respond to them.

A few weeks ago, the Senate had a hearing on OSC's implementation of the Hatch Act - how much more informed and effective culd Congressional oversight of OSC be if only OSC complied with the law by properly documenting its determinations of violations of laws under its jurisdiction?

October 20, 2007

Hillary Clinton, the video she doesn't want you to see (illegal campain fraud)DOI-BLM Internal BlogWe need your support for OSC Watch, please email us if you would like to tell us your story with your OSC filing.

October 13, 2007

I, Joe Carson, PE, played a role in the passage of the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act at of 2000 (EEOICPA). Over 3 billion dollars have been paid to about 25,000 claimants by that law.

Essentially, the Department of Energy and its contractors failed to inform their workers of hazards they faced and failed to protect them from those hazards as they worked to create America's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Since it is so difficult to sue the government, particularly when classified information is involved, Congress passed the law that provides a lump sum payment of $150,000 (plus ongoing medical expenses and lost wages in some situations) to those workers or their survivors.

10,000 or more federal employees have sought the protection of the Office of Special Counsel from prohibited personal practices (PPP) since 1989 and did not receive the protection that OSC is required to provide-specifically, OSC did not make and/or appropriately report its required determination, "whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a prohibited personal practice has occurred, exists, or is to be taken," which is the Office of Special Counsel's fundamental obligation to those who seek its protection. Additionally, The Merit Systems Protection Board, since 1989, has failed to conduct its required oversight of the Office of Special Counsel's compliance with its duties to protect federal employees from prohibited personal practices.

OSC Watch is considering calling upon Congress to legislate relief for the victims of the Office of Special Counsel, by passing a law that provides a lump-sum payment of $100,000.00 of every instances in which an employee filed a prohibited personal practice complaint with the office of special counsel since 1989 which alleged a non-reprisal type PPP for which OSC has jurisdiction in which OSC cannot demonstrate it made and appropriately reported its PPP determination, and a lump-sum payment of $300,000.00 of every instances in which an employee filed a prohibited personal practice complaint with the office of special counsel since 1989 which alleged a reprisal type PPP (5 USC 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) type PPP's) in which OSC cannot demonstrate it made and appropriately reported its PPP determination.

Getting such a law passed would be difficult, for reasons including OSC and MSPB still deny their lawbreaking (i.e. victims of their lawbreaking continue to be created everyday.)

However, the key advocacy groups GAP and POGO now agree it is reasonable to claim that such lawbreaking exists and has existed since 1989, which means Congress and the media will now consider these claims reasonable.

To move the ball forward, the victims of the lawbreaking have to organize themselves, find allies, get Congressional and media attention and support, "out" the OSC and MSPB lawbreaking, and evaluate instituting a class-action suit. No one will do this for them, they have to do it themselves. Unless there is a chance for significant monetary relief to compensate the victims of OSC and MSPB lawbreaking, this will not happen. Unless lawyers get involved because they see the chance to make significant money from such a class-action suit, it probably will not happen either. Everyone has too much to do to get involved unless there is a reasonable chance for compensation.

OSC has the records of who filed PPP complaints with it since 1989, so locating the victims of its lawbreaking (or their survivors) can be done, if Congress wants it done, or if lawyers get serious about a class-action suit.

OSC Watch is a "coalition of the willing." http://whsknox.blogs.com/osc_watch If you have filed one or more PPP complaints with OSC since 1989, or know someone who may have, OSC Watch exists to get you and them a measure of justice from OSC/MSPB lawbreaking. But it will not happen unless enough victims (or their survivors) make it happen.

October 06, 2007

October 05, 2007

This is the blog for OSC Watch, a coalition of the willing, which has the following objectives:

1) "out" OSC lawbreaking since 1989 in failing to protect, as required by 5 USC 1214, the 10,000 or more federal employees who sought its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP's) - not limited to whistleblower reprisal type PPP, but including the 11 (of 12) types of PPP for which OSC has jurisdiction - particularly the 3000 or so who subsequently filed whistleblower appeals at MSPB; along with MSPB's enabling lawbreaking failure since 1989, per 5 USC 1204, to conduct oversight of OSC's compliance with 5 USC 1214;

2) stop OSC lawbreaking and MSPB enabling lawbreaking, and

3) obtain some measure of justice for the 10,000 or more direct victims of OSC's lawbreaking since 1989.